Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
Your host, PM 'Papa' Carpenter
Biden

***

  • ***

********


« An ass-backward Republican view of republican government | Main | The Von Trump Family Toddlers »

January 21, 2020

Comments

I'm so sick of Bernie I could puke. But mostly I'm sick of Democratic senators and leadership who played footsie with him for the sake of an occasional vote from the mean old Muppet. He has used the Democrats, because they let him, and he's given back nothing but being an electoral pest. They should have cut him loose years ago and now, when we really can't afford to tolerate his disruption, I mean really really don't have the time to lose, we have yet another Bernie moment and as usual it's frothed up by one of cult members and he made use of it.

He's a self indulgent man who is a legend in his own mind.

Yet another reason, I suppose, why the 'Ginger Ninja' will win 'yuuuuugely' in the Autumn. We have a saying 'over here', "they couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery!"

By the way, does anybody know what has happened to the 'Dark Avenger'? I rather miss him and his 'faux-Wodehousean' prose.

Surrogates are a double edged sword though. Especially when your actual surrogates are overwhelmed by your self appointed surrogates. This has been a recurring problem for Sanders and other candidates. Even the "official" ones can be problematical. They get worse as things get more desperate. I well recall how late in the last primary with doom clearly written on the wall for Bernie he had supporter Tim Robbins publicly run a idea up the flag pole. And that idea was that Democratic primary voters from Red States the Democrats couldn't win shouldn't really carry the same weight as primary voters from blue states when it came to apportioning delegates. Nobody was supposed to notice that this extremely self serving proposal to change the rules would instantly disenfranchise a large percentage of the black voters who had supported Clinton.

The reaction was instantaneous. No sir that proposal wasn't going to fly and the Sanders campaign instantly disavowed it. My point would be that the Bernie Bros did not. They kept advocating and defending it which effects linger to this day with Black voters.

I would not go so far myself. His vote on things like ACA was critical to passage of that legislation. Not that I disagree with your personal assessment. He has spent his entire Senate career flying the Democratic Party flag of convenience when it comes to elections and assaulting them the rest of the time. This would not augur well if he was to be the leader of that party.

By the way, if you really want to piss off a Bernie Bro just remind them Bernie voted for ACA.

Okay. I'll give him points for his ACA vote and a few other moments. Fair enough.

And I'll clarify. The Democratic leadership should have made it crystal clear to him, especially after the 2016 election that delivered us the abomination of Trump and empowered McConnell, that not only would they not tolerate him and his minions heading into 2020, but would actively work against him. The leadership, the money people, etc. They should have played hardball. But it's not exactly their sport. Bernie makes me angry. We'll never know (or at least I haven't seen data) how much damage he and his apostles did to Hillary in 2016 (and they would have done it to anybody who got the nomination who wasn't named Bernie Sanders). But it may have been just enough, a vote here and 10 there, to do real damage. And they're at it again. And I am sickened by their gall.

:-)

I'll put that on my "to do" list.

I used to make the argument myself that the Democratic Party would be well advised to lose their most extreme elements on the left and seek alternative more mainstream voters. I still do. Yet one cannot deny that the overall drift of the party has been to the left. That is a very good thing for that is how good social policy will prevail. And yes many of these are indeed a pain in the ass and not terribly reliable voters at the best of times.

Still, taking the aerial view, I have a question I like to ask myself when the trouble starts with the far lefties. Looking at the composition of the two big tents, Democratic or Republican, which would you rather have as your pain in the ass? Would you rather have some overambitious and not terribly well informed lefty loonies. Or would you rather have the overt racists and religious bigots that infest the Republican Party? I find that helps clarify my thinking.

Not that you wouldn't want to pick up some support from the center right. There are some worth having. But you sure wouldn't want to do anything that brings the poisons back from the Republicans. They can keep those.


+

He won't be the leader of the party because he doesn't belong to it.

Can anyone really doubt that, should Bernie win the election, his first action would be to declare he isn't a Democrat now he's won?

"... the Democratic Party would be well advised to lose their most extreme elements on the left and seek alternative more mainstream voters."

Excuse me, but isn't that exactly what they've been doing for the last 30 years? The party elders show time after time that they don't mind losing the occasional election because some fringe candidate gets a couple thousand votes in a state like Florida. When we lose because a couple folks stay home in Wisconsin, PA, or MI, they don't get too upset, because, hey...we'll get 'em next time.

Plus, speaking of Karl Rove, is Karl running Biden's campaign? Joe has more surrogates than all the other candidates combined, I think.

So far, the Biden Express looks like a total re-run of Hillary 2016, but this time, we're expecting different results, I gather.

Good points. I'd rather have the left loons and their unicorns and rainbows because at least their heart is in the right place. For the most part.

I think that the trick is to have a candidate who may carry those beliefs, sincerely, but with the pragmatism (and a good staff) who reigns in his supporters and steers them in the right direction, at least during the election, rather than getting down and wallowing with them and encouraging their self defeating tendencies. Because that's the only hope that the policies they're clamoring for gets implemented at all. Bill Clinton had his Sister Souljah moment. Obama was a master at leading his team. There have been other examples.

Bernie cannot manage his own supporters. And that's why he has no business running.

Bingo.

The progressive theory that voters stay home because they aren't offered authentic progressive candidates has also been tested multiple times at the congressional level. And it fails nearly every time. I note progressives always blame the party for failing to adequately fund these losers. But never ask why, if their views were so popular, they didn't raise the cash themselves? I also note that the Democrats also retook the House not because of the fire breathers like the Group of Four but because moderate Democrats took a lot of suburban districts.

Whether Biden has more surrogates than anyone else is to me unknown. But the ones he has are definitely smarter than the Warren and Sanders tribes judging by their public commentary.

I would expect a bull moose in a china shop.

Where the heck did I use the word, "progressive?" Rather than address the points I actually make, you manufacture a "progressive" argument I never made, and implicate me with it. But I guess I'm not supposed to notice.

I can't believe you don't know that Biden leads the league in surrogates. He has more than the rest of them combined. You must not be paying very close attention. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

In my opinion, the surrogates hurt Joe more than they help him, because, without exception, they are from among the Democrats' most tread-worn Methuselahs. Obama is right: These old New Democrats are "The Things That Wouldn't Leave," as they used to say on SNL.

The comments to this entry are closed.